| |
BGonline.org Forums
Rolling Rules
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Rolling Rules (Keene)
Date: Tuesday, 14 October 2014, at 12:29 a.m.
When you say that you've 'never had a problem with shaking or roll' I am unclear exactly what you mean by that. You state that no one has ever objected to your own rolls, so do you also mean you've never doubted anyone else's?
I would also respectfully point out that, just because a player does not question the legality of our rolls, it does not mean that they were always comfortable with them. For example, I definitely prefer transparent precision dice, and I know players who have told me that they also don't like to play with opaque ones - yet I see them playing various people with them in tournaments. For many, it seems, the fear of a negative reaction from their opponent when stating their objections to the use of such dice, or to the legality of a shake or roll is greater than the fear of allowing it. This may well be borne out of previous experience, of course. I think that's regrettable.
I just think that it's better that we do not create such situations in the first place. I also think it's better that the rules are clearer on such things. With respect specifically to the number of shakes, it seems to me that, with dice shaken up and down in a cup, we can approach randomness quite quickly - certainly compared to the time it takes to approach randomness shuffling a pack of cards, for example. I do not doubt that a single vigorous up and down shake contributes considerably towards approaching randomness, but it seems reasonable to doubt that it actually achieves this! Surely, at least one or two more are needed to approach randomness sufficiently closely? Some rule sets do specify at least three. IMHO it should certainly be more than one.
Of course, the roll itself should contribute greatly towards approaching randomness, but sometimes one, or even both dice stop exactly where they fall. This can and, I guess, usually does happen with the best of intentions. When this is combined though with an inadequate number of shakes (and/or inadequate type of shaking) then the 'roll' might not be anywhere near random, and result in (generally unstated) discomfiture in the opponent.
I will state here that I don't believe that we have to be consciously trying to influence a roll to do this. I'm convinced that the unconscious mind is phenomenally powerful, and that we all employ it, at least from time to time. That, to me, is good enough reason to NEVER give the dice only a single shake, actually to always employ at least several, and in fact (amongst other reasons) to always prefer a baffle box.
With Phil Simborg playing in the Japan Open, that will have contributed to the distinct lack of the latter at Peoria. I do feel though that the term 'randomness' really is frequently cheaply employed in our game.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.